One of those recommendations was to commission an independent expert to review and make recommendations on the recruitment processes and working arrangements for Court Services Victoria (CSV) staff who work in a primary relationship with judicial officers.

That independent review — undertaken by former Victorian Supreme Court judge Julie Dodds-Streeton KC and Jack O’Connor, of counsel — has now been completed.

In a statement responding to the review, Victorian Chief Justice and chair of courts Anne Ferguson (pictured) said that CSV continues to examine the risks that exist and introduce measures to address them.

“The report released today concerns the arrangements for staff working directly with the judiciary and marks an important further step in that process,” her honour said.

“We know the great harm that has been caused when judicial officers have abused their position and sexually harassed staff. We know staff have felt they could not disclose this or make a complaint for fear of adverse repercussions,” Ferguson CJ espoused.

“We know the responsibility lies with us as leaders of the courts and VCAT to prevent it, to take action if we see or hear about it, and to ensure that staff know they can report it without fear and that they will be supported.

“This responsibility extends to all judicial officers.”

VIEW ALL

Independent review findings

In exploring the demographics and length of tenure of associates working in CSV, the review noted that the fact that the significant majority of associates are employed on short-term contracts is “itself an obvious and significant risk factor for sexual harassment”.

“It also provides a disincentive for associates to report inappropriate conduct: an associate subjected to such conduct might think it better to ‘put up with’ that conduct for a short time before the expiry of their contract, rather than make a complaint and cut the associateship short, knowing that if they leave their position with a judicial officer before the standard 12 or 18 months, questions may be asked by future employers as to the reasons for the early termination of that role,” the review outlined.

“They will also forfeit the many benefits, uniquely valuable to those commencing a legal career, of the judge’s association and patronage.”

With regard to assignment of staff to judicial officers, Ms Dodds-Streeton and Mr O’Connor’s review detailed that a close working relationship with a judge may heighten the risk of sexual harassment.

“However, the power and status of judicial office pose inherent risks vis a vis junior people working in, or associated with, the legal profession.

“Judicial office provides many opportunities for the incumbent to connect with young over-awed persons studying or working in the law. Effective education for judges on the impact of their power and its potential abuse is thus of primary importance. This will provide guidance on appropriate judicial conduct whether in or outside the employment context,” the review suggested.

On the question of reporting lines, the review identified that more junior CSV-employed staff (including chambers staff) who work in a primary relationship with judges “either did not always have an accurate understanding of their reporting lines, or perceived that their reporting line, at least in practice, if not theory, is to a judicial officer”.

“Reporting lines must not only be well defined on the organisational chart, but also clearly communicated to those working in a primary relationship with judicial officers,” the review posited.

Recommendations

It is difficult, Ms Dodds-Streeton and Mr O’Connor wrote, “to formulate concrete recommendations to address risk factors exposed by the substantiated incidents and feedback [received], that arise in the unique, hitherto virtually unregulated relationship between judges and their chambers staff”.

“That relationship has worked well for many people over time, often providing career highlights for associates, mutual satisfaction and lasting bonds for judges and staff and efficiency in serving the administration of justice in a frequently demanding context,” the pair reflected.

“The recommendations we propose frequently emphasise education, counselling, instruction and training for the parties involved. It would be, as one of our interviewees noted, a tragedy if heavy-handed attempts to regulate or micromanage the personal and professional interactions of judges and their staff effectively destroyed a unique, sometimes idiosyncratic relationship which has long served many participants so well.”

“Our enquiries do not suggest that sexual harassment of chambers or other staff by Victorian judicial officers is widespread. Rather, there are risk factors and some reported instances and observations which cannot be ignored and must be addressed,” Ms Dodds-Streeton and Mr O’Connor determined.

Ultimately, the review contained 27 recommendations, which Ferguson CJ said have been endorsed by the Courts Council, which is now working through how those recommendations can and will be implemented.

Those recommendations centre, her honour noted, on designating “staff judges” as an additional, authoritative and trusted point of connection for staff from their induction onwards; broadening their connections across the organisation with other judiciary and staff; providing clear channels of communication to raise issues; and the establishment of policies that encourage reporting by providing reassurance that employment will not be adversely impacted.

Looking ahead

Ferguson CJ thanked Ms Dodds-Streeton and Mr O’Connor for their efforts in completing the review, as well as those who shared their insights and experiences for the report.

“History has shown that sexual harassment is not a simple problem to solve, and the courts, VCAT and CSV are not alone in addressing it. Our commitment remains unwavering,” her honour proclaimed.

“We remain focused on doing all we can to build cultures of respect, fairness, and inclusion.”